mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

341K
active users

#vox

71 posts27 participants1 post today

How the Nintendo Switch 2 delay explains Trump’s tariffs

rss.ponder.cat/post/150397

rss.ponder.catHow the Nintendo Switch 2 delay explains Trump’s tariffs - Pondercat RSSA video game player with the Ninteno Switch 2. [https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/gettyimages-2207677015.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100] It was a big week for the global economy — and for gamers. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs that have sent markets spiraling worldwide. On the same day, Nintendo also announced its much-anticipated handheld gaming console, the Switch 2. It would be priced at $450, or $500 for a bundle including the latest Mario Kart game, the company said. Preorders on the Nintendo website would open in early May [https://gameinformer.com/nintendo-direct/2025/04/02/heres-how-to-pre-order-a-nintendo-switch-2] to only the most dedicated users of the first-generation Switch, with a June 5 release date. By Friday, however, Nintendo had scrapped those plans. The company said in a statement [https://www.theverge.com/news/643483/nintendo-switch-2-preorders-delayed-tariffs] that it needed to “assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions,” leaving open the possibility of a price hike and delaying the preorder date. More than 46 million Switch consoles [https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2024/12/nintendo-switch-finally-surpasses-playstation-2s-lifetime-sales-in-the-us#:~:text=The%20latest%20ranking%20shake%2Dup%20comes%20from%20Circana,the%20US%20as%20of%2030th%20November%202024.] have been sold in the US as of November 30, 2024, and the backlash has been swift. Gamers were already complaining about how expensive the Switch 2 [https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8jRCVhq/] was before the possibility of a price hike. By Friday, some suggested in a Discord chat for Switch users that they might go across the border to Canada to avoid even higher US prices for the next-generation system. Ultimately, the Switch 2 is a luxury item. It shouldn’t be anyone’s first priority, given that Trump’s tariffs are expected to increase prices even for basic necessities and upend global supply chains broadly. However, it’s an example of how Trump’s tariffs are wreaking havoc in an economy where Americans are accustomed to relatively low prices for imported goods, especially consumer electronics. “It’s a pricing issue that is a direct response to the tariffs,” said Shihoko Goto, a senior fellow at the Mansfield Foundation specializing in trade and economic interests across the Indo-Pacific. “This is just one example of one product from one company being hit by tariffs, and we’re going to see price increases all across the board.” ## Why Nintendo might increase its prices Nintendo, a Japanese company, took preemptive steps to avoid tariffs during the first Trump administration. In 2019, it started moving some of its Switch production [https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/nintendo-says-to-shift-part-of-switch-console-production-out-of-china-idUSKCN1U40HR/] from China to Vietnam as the US imposed tariffs on Chinese imports. Now, the US is effectively punishing companies like Nintendo that took Trump’s incentives to leave China for friendlier partners like Vietnam, which is a large producer of consumer electronics, shoes, and clothes. Vietnam was hit with 46 percent tariffs [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jxrnl9xe2o], one of the highest rates on the schedule that the White House unveiled Wednesday. That’s because Trump has sought to target Vietnam and other countries that have a high trade surplus with the US, believing that they’re “cheating” America [https://time.com/7274039/trump-tariff-announcement/]. However, he ignores the reason why Vietnam has a trade surplus with the US: It is relatively poor [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/trumps-idiotic-and-flawed-tariff-calculations-stun-economists] and cannot afford to buy many American-made goods. Trade analysts have also argued that Vietnam’s exports benefit both the country itself and its trading partners. At a lower cost, it has produced high-demand goods that were traditionally made in China. “One of the reasons why we can have fairly affordable shoes and textiles is because they are imported from places in South and Southeast Asia,” Goto said. In slapping tariffs on goods from Vietnam and other manufacturing hubs, the cost of producing and exporting goods to the American market will go up. Companies like Nintendo are expected to pass that on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. As a result, consumers may ultimately decide they can no longer afford optional goods like the Switch 2. “There’s going to be a lot of belt tightening on optional consumer goods, especially on consumer electronics,” Goto said. ## Why the onshoring promised probably won’t happen Trump’s plan is that, in the long run, companies will want access to the American market and move their production to the US, reviving domestic manufacturing. However, that doesn’t seem likely to occur in many industries, including consumer electronics. Daniel Ahmad, a gaming industry analyst, posted on X [https://x.com/ZhugeEX/status/1907789618294005816] that Nintendo would “need to spend billions to open a factory in the US.” Getting a factory up and running would likely take four to five years, by which time there could be another US president who rolls back the tariffs. But if they remain in place, source components for the Switch, such as GPUs, are made outside the US and are subject to tariffs, leading to increased costs. Labor costs would also be as much as 15 times higher in the US than in Vietnam. Add all that up, and the cost of the Switch becomes much higher than $450. Americans aren’t likely to accept those kinds of price increases, especially given that they were already struggling to keep up with higher prices post-pandemic. “We want high-quality, low-cost goods, and it’s going to be difficult to make that in the United States,” Goto said. — Posted from Vox [https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml] RSS feed, see !meta@rss.ponder.cat [/c/meta@rss.ponder.cat]

A conspiracy theorist convinced Trump to fire the NSA director

rss.ponder.cat/post/150298

rss.ponder.catA conspiracy theorist convinced Trump to fire the NSA director - Pondercat RSSConspiracy theorist Laura Loomer wears a shirt that reads “Donald Trump did nothing wrong.” [https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/gettyimages-1258663399.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100] Laura Loomer shows up in support of President Donald Trump in 2023 when he was scheduled to appear in federal court for his arraignment on charges including possession of national security documents after leaving office, obstruction, and making false statements. | Stephanie Keith/Getty Images _This story appeared in _ The Logoff [https://www.vox.com/donald-trump/406199/blank] _, _a _daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. _ Subscribe here [https://www.vox.com/pages/logoff-newsletter-trump-administration-updates]. Welcome to The Logoff: Donald Trump’s tariffs, and the economic havoc they’re wreaking [https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/04/investing/stock-market-dow-tariffs/index.html], are still dominating the headlines. But today I want to focus on a story I worry is going under the radar: the president outsourcing national security staffing decisions to a far-right conspiracy theorist. What’s the latest? Trump fired Gen. Timothy Haugh [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/03/nsa-director-fired-tim-haugh/], the head of the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command, on Thursday. Haugh and several other high-ranking national security officials [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html] were booted after Trump met with Laura Loomer, who urged him to purge “disloyal” figures from his national security team. Loomer took credit for the firings, while Trump denied she was involved. Who is Laura Loomer? She’s a far-right activist and social media personality [https://www.axios.com/2024/09/13/laura-loomer-conspiracy-theories-trump] known for her embrace of conspiracy theories, her self-described Islamophobia, and her loyalty to Trump. She has claimed 9/11 was an inside job, that Joe Biden was behind the July attempt to assassinate Trump, and that multiple school shootings were staged. Who is Haugh? He’s a four-star general whom Joe Biden nominated to lead NSA. The Senate confirmed him in 2023 with overwhelming bipartisan support [https://therecord.media/timothy-haugh-nsa-cyber-command-confirmed-senate]. Before that, he co-led a 2018 effort to prevent Russian interference in the midterms [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/03/nsa-director-fired-tim-haugh/]. Why does it matter who directs the NSA? The agency has extraordinary power to wiretap Americans and engage in cyber espionage, and its leader has great influence over whether that power is abused. Is this legal? Yes. The NSA director serves at the pleasure of the president. So what’s the big picture? Trump says Loomer was not involved in the firings, but that’s not credible, given their timing and his track record with the truth. So it appears that a conspiracy theorist was given significant influence over leadership of agencies that have the power to infringe on civil liberties. ## And with that, it’s time to log off… I hate being bored. I’m not great at sitting still, and I get anxious when I have to do so. At even a hint of boredom, I reflexively reach for my phone, which too often ends in time wasted on games or passive scrolling, and that somehow only makes me more bored. So I was really grateful for this article about how boredom isn’t a punishment — it’s a tool [https://www.vox.com/even-better/399440/boredom-myths-creativity-psychology-meaning-fulfillment]. Boredom, my colleague Allie Volpe writes, can help you know “when you’ve gone off track from what you value and what you care about and what you can give to the world.” Take good care this weekend, and I’ll see you back here on Monday. — Posted from Vox [https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml] RSS feed, see !meta@rss.ponder.cat [/c/meta@rss.ponder.cat]

What this disastrous week taught us about the Trump presidency

rss.ponder.cat/post/150184

rss.ponder.catWhat this disastrous week taught us about the Trump presidency - Pondercat RSS[https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/gettyimages-2207385984.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100] President Donald Trump gestures while speaking during an executive order signing event in the Oval Office of the White House on March 31, 2025, in Washington, DC. Donald Trump’s tariffs were at once predictable and shocking. Predictable, in the sense that Trump had been crystal-clear [https://x.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1907638587387941075] about wanting across-the-board tariffs during the campaign. Shocking, because they have been implemented in a manner that appears extreme and incompetent [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-fake-tariff-rates-1.7501604] even by previous Trump standards [https://www.wired.com/story/trump-tariffs-antarctic-islands-heard-mcdonald/]. As a result, the world is historically unsettled: One metric of global economic uncertainty shows higher levels of concern than at any point in the 21st century [https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1908140423861706813], worse than the 2008 financial crisis and even the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. It turns out that this combination, both predictable and shocking, has become a bit of a theme for the Trump team lately. Consider two other news stories, both of which would be headline-grabbing scandals if it weren’t for the tariffs. First, Trump has empowered Laura Loomer [https://www.vox.com/politics/371794/laura-loomer-trump-campaign-911-marjorie-taylor-greene], a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and self-described “proud Islamophobe,” to purge top government officials [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html]. The head of the National Security Agency, his top deputy, and six staffers on the National Security Council have all been fired this week — seemingly at Loomer’s behest [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/national-security-agency-chief-deputy-director-dismissed-rcna199647]. Second, the Department of Health and Human Services started layoffs on Tuesday that are expected to hit about 10,000 workers [https://www.vox.com/health/406967/rfk-jr-hhs-cuts-vaccine-measles-outbreak]. By the end of it, about a quarter of the department’s staff will have been cut amid a worrying measles outbreak and the real risk of a bird flu pandemic. Trump telegraphed these moves during the campaign — promising to root out the “the deep state” and vowing to let Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “go wild” at HHS. But they are shocking, nonetheless. Putting Laura Loomer, of all people, in charge of sensitive national security decisions is nothing short of astonishing. And the sheer scope of the HHS cuts, given the current public health challenges, led my colleague Dylan Scott to describe the situation as an “unfolding catastrophe [https://www.vox.com/health/406967/rfk-jr-hhs-cuts-vaccine-measles-outbreak].” This, it seems, is the week where we saw the Trump administration’s true and unvarnished face. It’s not that what happened this week was necessarily worse than what came before it, though the tariffs might well prove to be. Rather, it’s that the week revealed the true scope and nature of our Trump problem — with even some of his supporters starting to openly worry that things have gone badly wrong [https://www.richardhanania.com/p/kakistocracy-as-a-natural-result]. Put differently, the last week has shown, in no uncertain terms, that Trump is acting like a mad king. ## What we just learned Trump had done shocking and surprising things pretty much since he entered office on January 20. His blatantly political assault on universities, his decision to send innocent Venezuelans to a Salvadoran gulag, his bizarre crusade to make Canada “the 51st state,” his unlawful efforts to shut down entire federal agencies like USAID — all of this made clear that we were in for an unhinged approach to governance. But even after all that, some people thought there still might be constraints. Previous rounds of tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada did not lead Wall Street to panic — partly because they were moderated or walked back after implementation. Many conservatives alarmed by Trump’s policies reassured themselves that his national security team, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz, hailed from the GOP’s more traditional internationalist wing. Now, there is panic even in these quarters. Wall Street is horrified; the S&P 500 lost more value this week in absolute terms than it did during the entire 2008 financial crisis [https://x.com/LJKawa/status/1908176050854428900]. Republican stalwarts like Ben Shapiro [https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-trumps-tariffs-are-massive-tax-increase-american-consumers-and-it-designed] and Erick Erickson [https://x.com/EWErickson/status/1907593286681833943] are warning of dire economic and political consequences if Trump stays the course on tariffs. And the notion that the GOP national security “professionals” might check any of this is no longer credible: This week, Waltz was made to sit in an Oval Office meeting [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html] during which Loomer listed off staff members of his to be fired. Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that the tariffs could well be “terrible for America.” The point is not merely to mock these people or say, “I told you so.” Rather, it’s to illustrate that even those who wore blinders about Trump are starting to see what’s happening. And what’s happening is this: government by mad king. The phrase “mad king” has been tossed around a lot in the past few weeks, but I think it’s worth offering a more precise definition. A mad king, in my sense, is not merely a leader who makes bad decisions. Nor is it a literal king who assumed office through heredity rather than, say, free and fair elections. Instead, it’s one who makes them based on reasons that are out of touch with reality, making sense only in their own mind. And it’s one who is able to do so with little-to-no constraint — thanks, in our case, to the dangerous concentration of power in the executive branch [https://www.vox.com/politics/407053/trump-tariff-expensive-democracy-authoritarianism-breakdown]. The events of this week show conclusively that the president fits the definition. Trump decided to detonate the global economy because of his decades-old belief, in defiance of a consensus of economists, that tariffs are the key to American prosperity. No one, not even his previously demonstrated concern for the stock market, could stop him from acting on it. A mad king economic policy. Trump has given partial control over the national security bureaucracy of the world’s greatest military power to a demonstrably unstable conspiracy theorist who once chained herself outside of Twitter’s headquarters. The people who were supposed to keep Trump in bounds were proven powerless, and (in Waltz’s case) outright humiliated. A mad king national security policy. Trump has outsourced public health decisions to an unqualified nepo baby who has embraced nearly every unfounded health theory out there. He then allowed that man to decimate the ranks of our public health bureaucracy in the midst of at least two serious public health crises. The traditionally credentialed individuals in Trump’s health team, like NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, have proven no constraint at all. A mad king public health policy. When I say this is “the week that Trump became unglued,” I thus do not mean that this is the first week where we could see that things are bad — or even that we had a mad king problem. Rather, I mean that this is the week where the full scope of the mad king problem so undeniable that even some of Trump’s allies on the right began to see it. The only question now is how the country — and particularly key members of the Trump coalition — will react. — Posted from Vox [https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml] RSS feed, see !meta@rss.ponder.cat [/c/meta@rss.ponder.cat]

The right is cooking up a surprising legal fight against Trump’s tariffs

rss.ponder.cat/post/150175

rss.ponder.catThe right is cooking up a surprising legal fight against Trump’s tariffs - Pondercat RSSTrump at his desk about to sign an executive order. [https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/gettyimages-2207408834.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0,0,100,100] President Donald Trump speaks to reporters and signs an executive order about enforcement in the concert and entertainment industry on March 31, 2025. | Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images On Thursday, one day after President Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs, what appears to be the first lawsuit challenging those tariffs [https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-sues-to-stop-trump-admin-from-imposing-emergency-tariffs-that-congress-never-authorized/] was filed in a federal court in Florida. That alone isn’t particularly surprising. The tariffs are expected to drive up the costs of goods in the United States [https://www.vox.com/scotus/407051/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-major-questions], and have already sent the stock market into a nose dive. That means that a lot of aggrieved potential plaintiffs have standing to challenge the tariffs [https://www.vox.com/2021/6/17/22538462/supreme-court-obamacare-california-texas-stephen-breyer-standing-individual-mandate-constitution] in court. What is surprising is that the plaintiff in this particular case, known as Emily Ley Paper v. Trump [https://nclalegal.org/filing/complaint-for-injunctive-and-declaratory-relief-5/], is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a right-wing legal shop that previously backed Trump’s efforts to expand executive power [https://nclalegal.org/press_release/in-ncla-amicus-win-d-c-circuit-recognizes-president-trumps-right-to-fire-principal-officer/]. NCLA is part of what appears to be a growing effort among prominent right-leaning intellectuals and commentators to challenge Trump’s tariffs. At the Volokh Conspiracy, an influential right-libertarian legal blog, George Mason law professor Ilya Somin is actively recruiting plaintiffs to file a similar lawsuit challenging the tariffs [https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/03/why-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-are-illegal/] (Somin has long been a principled libertarian critic of Trump [https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/24/kamala-harris-is-a-far-lesser-evil-than-donald-trump/]). Ben Shapiro, the one-time Breitbart writer who is also a lawyer, criticized Trump’s tariffs as a “massive tax increase on American consumers [https://www.mediamatters.org/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-trumps-tariffs-are-massive-tax-increase-american-consumers-and-it-designed],” and has gently advocated for Trump to change course [https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/shapiro-the-problem-with-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs]. Richard Hanania, a writer best known for his baroque criticisms of “wokeness,” [https://www.richardhanania.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights] responded to a pro-Trump member of Congress’ praise of the tariffs with “we’re ruled by morons [https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1907581662017511794].” All of this matters because conservative-minded judges, including the six Republicans who dominate the Supreme Court, are often highly responsive to public statements from conservative legal and media elites [https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/21/23686788/supreme-court-abortion-pill-ruling-mifepristone-fda-alliance-hippocratic-medicine]. During President Barack Obama’s first term, for example, liberal lawyers and legal scholars were often flabbergasted by how quickly conservative judges rallied behind a weak legal case against the Affordable Care Act [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/not-even-close/] — eventually persuading four Republican justices to vote to repeal the law altogether [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/]. Their mistake — one I made as well — was assuming that judges would be persuaded by the kind of careful, precedent-focused legal reasoning that earns you top grades in law school, rather than by what they were hearing from legal and political elites that they viewed as ideological allies. As Yale law professor Jack Balkin wrote about that error, a legal argument can “move from off the wall to on the wall because people and institutions are willing to put their reputations on the line [https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/from-off-the-wall-to-on-the-wall-how-the-mandate-challenge-went-mainstream/258040/] and state that an argument formerly thought beyond the pale is not crazy at all.” In the end, many judges cared more about what they heard on Fox News or at an event hosted by the Federalist Society, than they did about what the Supreme Court said in Gonzales v. Raich [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/] (2005). ## If you take the Court’s recent precedents seriously, there is a very strong legal argument against the tariffs At least on the surface, anyone who wants to challenge Trump’s tariffs faces a far more favorable legal landscape than Obamacare opponents faced in 2010. During the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican justices fabricated novel new legal doctrines, such as the so-called major questions doctrine [https://www.vox.com/scotus/407051/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-major-questions], in order to strike down Democratic policies they deemed too ambitious. They also threatened to revive old, once-discredited ideas like the “nondelegation doctrine [https://www.vox.com/22276279/supreme-court-war-joe-biden-agency-regulation-administrative-neil-gorsuch-epa-nondelegation],” which was used to frustrate President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Both of these doctrines are grounded in the idea that the judiciary has broad power to strike down policies established by the executive branch of the federal government, even if the executive can point to an act of Congress that explicitly gives them the power to do what they want to do [https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts]. The primary reason to be skeptical that the Supreme Court will actually apply one of these doctrines to strike down Trump’s tariffs is that the Republican justices’ rollout of their new approach to executive power has been so partisan [https://www.vox.com/scotus/23791610/supreme-court-major-questions-doctrine-nebraska-biden-student-loans-gorsuch-barrett] that it is hard not to suspect that they are acting in bad faith. The same six Republican justices who said that Democratic President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program was an egregious power grab [https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/30/23779903/supreme-court-student-loan-biden-nebraska-john-roberts], despite the fact that that program was authorized by a federal statute empowering the executive to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs,” also said that Republican President Donald Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes [https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship]. Similarly, the best legal argument against Trump’s tariffs is rooted in the Court’s major questions doctrine, which holds that judges should cast a skeptical eye on executive branch actions “of vast ‘economic and political significance’ [https://www.vox.com/scotus/407051/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-major-questions]” According to the Budget Lab at Yale, the tariffs are expected to reduce the average American household’s real annual income by nearly $3,800 [https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/where-we-stand-fiscal-economic-and-distributional-effects-all-us-tariffs-enacted-2025-through-april]. That seems like a matter of vast economic and political significance. But the short history of this major questions doctrine would give any serious legal scholar great pause. The idea that programs of “vast economic and political significance" are suspect was first articulated in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/302/] (2014), in order to criticize a hypothetical Environmental Protection Agency regulation that was never enacted, that no one ever proposed, and that likely would have shut down all construction of hotels in the United States if it had ever actually existed. A year later, the Court used the major questions doctrine again to repudiate an imaginary health regulation [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/473/] that would have collapsed the individual health insurance markets in most states. Having used these strawmen to invent a completely new legal doctrine that appears nowhere in the Constitution or in any statute [https://www.vox.com/scotus/23791610/supreme-court-major-questions-doctrine-nebraska-biden-student-loans-gorsuch-barrett], the Court let this major questions doctrine lay dormant for Trump’s entire first term — only to revive it with a vengeance once a Democrat became president. To date, the doctrine has only been used to strike down actual, rather than theoretical, policies during the Biden administration. One of the most important questions looming over Trump’s second term is whether a Republican Supreme Court will apply the same rules it invented to thwart Democratic administrations to Trump and his subordinates. We do not know yet how the justices will answer this question. But, as Balkin writes, the answer is likely to be shaped by how elite conservatives in the legal profession, the media, and in elected office urge the justices to behave. [Content truncated due to length…] — Posted from Vox [https://www.vox.com/rss/index.xml] RSS feed, see !meta@rss.ponder.cat [/c/meta@rss.ponder.cat]

voici la voice transcriptio / differx, trascriz. di alberto d’amico. 2025

O
13:12 g
. a 70
M arco Giov

online oggi alle 13:05
•llol lolool
1:22
12:55
“Se uno lascia la suoneria disturbato se uno non lascia la toglie
poi
di Mike
Bongiorno che ti vuole _milioni quindi
non si sa come fare e ti volevo dire milioni di lire ovviamente perché non purtroppo ancora così ti volevo dire Mi ha scritto
adesso Giuseppe Rossi.
+
O

voici la voice transcriptio / differx, trascriz. di alberto d’amico. 2025

O
13:12 g
. a 70
M arco Giov

online oggi alle 13:05
•llol lolool
1:22
12:55
“Se uno lascia la suoneria disturbato se uno non lascia la toglie
poi
di Mike
Bongiorno che ti vuole _milioni quindi
non si sa come fare e ti volevo dire milioni di lire ovviamente perché non purtroppo ancora così ti volevo dire Mi ha scritto
adesso Giuseppe Rossi.
+
O

🇪🇸 SPAIN
🔴 Sánchez Unveils €14.1B Anti-Tariff Plan

🔸 €7.4B in new funds, €6.7B from existing tools: state guarantees, export insurance & SME aid.
🔸 Targets hardest-hit sectors like auto; aims to find new markets for Spanish firms.